Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

The excerpt for reads.

Tables are used to display tabular data in HTML.

This means that is redundant and should be merged into . Thanks.

We should retag all the questions tagged both and as .

Note: This doesn't mean that you should remove . Only the tag should be retagged as .

share|improve this question
Negative. Checking tag table, the first question already doesn't refer to HTML tables. – Robert Harvey Jun 6 '12 at 1:50
@RobertHarvey Well, they are wrong. As the wiki explicitly mentions to not use the tag when referring to a relational database. – user184498 Jun 6 '12 at 1:52
Someone co-opted the tag wiki. Doesn't mean they're right. – Robert Harvey Jun 6 '12 at 1:52
@RobertHarvey Doesn't mean they're wrong either. – user184498 Jun 6 '12 at 1:53
I think they are. There are several possible contexts for [table]. – Robert Harvey Jun 6 '12 at 1:54
@RobertHarvey Agreed. Let's go through table and retag everything appropriately. It will be like retagging list. Btw, can we have that marked as status-completed? – user184498 Jun 6 '12 at 1:55
Wouldn't removing html from these questions hide them from people watching that tag? Unless you plan on leaving html and just replacing table with html-table? – Jeremy Heiler Jun 6 '12 at 2:40
@JeremyHeiler Clarified concerns. – user184498 Jun 6 '12 at 2:41
Good :-) Now, how do we prevent new questions from being tagged table when they should be tagged html-table? Hopefully people see it when they type "table", but maybe not. It would just be a shame to do all this work and then have the problem come back. – Jeremy Heiler Jun 6 '12 at 2:44
@JeremyHeiler With as much things that have been retagged lately, we need some kind of script that automatically checks for this kind of stuff every week to see if the problem returns. – user184498 Jun 6 '12 at 2:45

That tag wiki is not specific to HTML. The last edit to the excerpt was a bad one.

The part about not using them with relational databases only relates to databases. Tagging things as and doesn't make much sense, because it's generally understood that MySQL uses database tables.

I added the HTML parts to it because I knew about them and that tag was very common. It was never meant to convert the tag to be HTML-specific. I would much rather see the appropriate HTML questions moved over to because in itself is very ambiguous.

share|improve this answer
That is probably the better option. – user184498 Jun 6 '12 at 2:22
You should leave this unaccepted until the problem is actually fixed, though. – animuson Jun 6 '12 at 2:22
Okay. I edited my question to reflect that. – user184498 Jun 6 '12 at 2:24
@JeremyHeiler: You don't need to remove the html tag as well. It's fine to have them tagged as html and html-table. – animuson Jun 6 '12 at 2:41
Sorry. I meant to comment on the question itself :-( I didn't realized you replied until after I deleted my comment. – Jeremy Heiler Jun 6 '12 at 2:44
@animuson, please see my answer. – ben is uǝq backwards Jun 6 '12 at 10:15

Can't fit this in a comment...

As the person who suggested the (approved) edit to the excerpt of I'd just like to explain my reasoning.

To quote from the tag wiki:

When referring to a relational database, do not use this tag. Use the appropriate tag for the database to which the question refers.

It seemed really rather pointless and counter-productive to have the following in the excerpt:

In an RDMS, tables contain multiple columns that represent a particular set of data.

I happen to agree with animuson's original edit to the wiki and his answer above. Using the tag in the context of a relational database is fairly ridiculous. It's more than implied by the fact that a database is being used. I therefore changed the excerpt to exclude mention of databases rather than altering the wiki to indicate that was appropriate for them.

I, obviously, disagree with the characterisation of the edit to the excerpt as "bad" :-).

Personally, I'm with the OP and animuson on this makes much more sense. If the tag is not meant to related solely to HTML tables (and the tag exists) then the excerpt should, maybe, be changed to something like this?:

Tables are used to display tabular data. Do not use for HTML-tables or in relation to a RDBMS.

Though "Tables are used to display tabular data" is a fairly obvious statement to make.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.